Articles by Herschel Smith

I’ve seen some very fast manipulation of bolt action rifles before, but it requires a lot of practice and that’s the exception rather than the rule.

Nice collection.  Some of the expense is related to the Title 2 weapons.  Be aware that part of the reason that the NFA and GCA hasn’t been repealed is the money collectors have invested into those weapons.

On the other hand, even without the Title 2 weapons, this is still a very large collection.

He has some hard ones.  Can’t help him.

But I do want his rifle.

Even after constitutional carry is passed by Alabama, the would-be rulers are still bitter, wanting to make their own laws.

“I have heard all of this.”  Meh.  Couldn’t care less, so drop it.

What an arrogant prick.  He’s better at lawmaking, just because.  Shut up, he explained.  He wears a shiny badge.

His county should kick him to the curb.  He’s begging people to get permits because he believes in state permitting, and for leverage, he’s pointing out one more time that if you want reciprocity, you must get my permit.

So come begging to me.  Now.

Vox.

I reached out to Stephen Gutowski, the founder of TheReload.com and a longtime reporter on the gun beat, for the latest episode of Vox Conversations. Gutowski is pro-gun, but he’s also a good-faith voice in this space, and I was looking for someone who could make his side of the argument intelligible to people who don’t understand it.

We talk about my own ambivalence on this issue, the blind spots on the left and right, how he makes sense of America’s obsession with guns, and if he thinks we can ever find a way out of the scorched-earth debate we seem to be stuck in.

Notice the term categorization and scorched earth policies the writer uses right up front.  Only someone who is willing to compromise is debating in “good faith.”  Second, anyone who likes to shoot, for hunting, or sporting purposes like three-gun, two-gun, precision rifle, or simply range shooting, has an “obsession with guns.”  Or anyone who believes that all gun control laws are an infringement upon liberties is obsessed.

Next in our little survey of this conversation, “pro-gun” Stephen Gutowski makes the following statement.

I think that there’s often a lack of focus on trying to come up with real solutions for gun violence. [The gun-control movement is] often looked at instinctively as attempts to restrict gun ownership or gun rights. But restricting gun ownership is not the only thing you can do to address gun violence. So there’s just not enough focus from the right on all the potential solutions that might make a difference without necessarily impacting individual gun rights.

Take note.  Restricting gun ownership isn’t the only thing you can do to address violent, and also take careful note that in order to be a legitimate and good faith advocate for gun rights, you must engage a debate about things you can do to reduce violence.  Much more on that in a moment.  Next, the “pro-gun rights” guys says this.

The president likes to say that no amendment is unlimited, and, frankly, he’s right there.

Next up, here’s that time-honored tradition of asserting that a piece of metal can change human psychology.

How much training is enough? I’m a veteran; I was trained to use a pistol and a rifle, but that was 20 years ago. I’ve barely fired any guns since I left the service. I don’t think I’m prepared to walk around town with a gun on my hip. And that’s not because I can’t shoot, it’s because possessing a gun can change the dynamics of an otherwise trivial confrontation and not being prepared for that responsibility is dangerous, and I worry that most people have even less training than I do.

[ … ]

My worry is that having a gun increases the likelihood that a bad interaction will escalate needlessly. There are a lot of people who think they’ll be safer with a gun, and in some cases, they surely will be, but often pulling a gun in order to neutralize a situation only intensifies it.

Sure, a potential rape victim is only intensifying the situation if she pulls a gun.

To give you an example, I was in the grocery store a few weeks ago in southern Mississippi, and there was a guy in line in front of me with a 9-millimeter on his hip. I’ll be charitable and say he didn’t look trained. But the point is that I don’t get what’s going on there. Carrying a concealed gun is one thing, but this guy wanted everyone to see it. To me that’s inviting aggression or it’s just dumb posturing. I don’t buy that he’s seriously scared of being assaulted in the produce aisle.

What am I missing here?

Let me explain what you’re missing here, and then the reader can go read the rest of this silly conversation as he wishes.

When people make the decision to carry and take it seriously, as one might have car insurance or health insurance or life insurance, or carry an emergency suction device for choking victims (I read just recently about a child who was choking on her food and saved by a stranger who just happens to carry such a device as part of their planning for emergencies), they are making the decision to be disciplined about it.

That means carrying even when you don’t like it.  I hate carrying things on my person.  I don’t wear jewelry, I don’t wear watches, and even hate carrying my phone around and won’t do it if I don’t have to.

But in this case, I will carry a firearm because of [we’ll call it] “The practice of discipline.”  For those who are in that category, they may just hate to carry IWB.  It sweats the weapon and corrodes it, it’s uncomfortable, and it’s unnecessary.  No, we’re not trying to prove something.  It’s just the way we choose to carry.  And finally, there was a time in American history when it was considered unlike a gentleman to carry a weapon concealed.  No gentleman, it was thought, would conceal his weapons.  Open carry was the order of the day.  And it’s easier for men to conceal than women.  Men can hide weapons in our girth.  It’s much more difficult for most women to do that.

So let’s get the root of the problem here.  The constitution isn’t a source of rights.  It is a contract and covenant.  The bill of rights constitutes limitations on governmental overreach.  The root of the problem is that no matter what these writers feel about the limitations on amendments, rights (and duties) come from the Almighty.  We’ve discussed this before.

But if you wish for more direct evidence of ownership of weapons in the Scriptures, look no further than what Jesus commanded in Luke 22:36.  Let’s look at the cultural context for a moment.

… for some evidence, see Digest 48.6.1: collecting weapons ‘beyond those customary for hunting or for a journey by land or sea’ is forbidden; 48.6.3.1 forbids a man ‘of full age’ appearing in public with a weapon (telum) (references and translation are from Mommsen 1985). See also Mommsen 1899: 564 n. 2; 657-58 n. 1; and Linderski 2007: 102-103 (though he cites only Mommsen). Other laws from the same context of the Digest sometimes cited in this regard are not as worthwhile for my purposes because they seem to be forbidding the possession of weapons with criminal intent. But for the outright forbidding of being armed while in public in Rome, see Cicero’s letter to his brother relating an incident in Rome in which a man, who is apparently falsely accused of plotting an assassination, is nonetheless arrested merely for having confessed to having been armed with a dagger while in the city: To Atticus, Letter 44 (II.24). See also Cicero, Philippics 5.6 (§17). Finally we may cite a letter that Synesius of Cyrene wrote to his brother, probably sometime around the year 400 ce. The brother had apparently questioned the legality of Synesius having his household produce weapons to defend themselves against marauding bands. Synesius points out that there are no Roman legions anywhere near for protection, but he seems reluctantly to admit that he is engaged in an illegal act (Letter 107; for English trans., see Fitzgerald 1926).

In this passage, Jesus is quite literally ordering His disciples to ignore the Roman laws and disobey them, buy weapons, and be ready to use them.  He is turning His disciples into lawbreakers for the sake of having self defense.

At its roots, these are issues of epistemology (your source of knowledge), ontology, and Biblical law.  Neither author gets that.  To assert that the only ones who are debating “in good faith” are the ones willing to compromise, is to assert that we should be willing to negotiate away God’s law and settle for enslavement rather than liberty.  What God has granted, no man can take away.  Why would a man choose enslavement when God has set him free?

And mark this down for your records.  I had only been exposed to “The Reload” once before, and this time it is even more distasteful.  I don’t consider him to be a legitimate defender of gun rights and will never cite him.  Be careful, Mr. Gutowski, who you befriend.

As for having these debates, this is an ongoing process here on these pages.  We just don’t compromise.  If you believe that you have to compromise to have a debate, I don’t think you understand the word “debate” at all.

News from Alaska.

House Bill 203 gives law enforcement the ability to issue a fine to gun owners of up to $1,000 if a prohibited individual gains access to their firearm and proceeds to injure themself or another. This bill will essentially require firearms to be locked and rendered inaccessible for self-defense in the home.

I would be surprised if this passes in Alaska, of all places.

This post started with a reddit/Firearms thread, but I went to the source to find this.

“Legitimate Sportsmen” get beat up by bad guns laws, and the NRA comes to the rescue with “good guns laws.”  If you read the article there is this notion that the NFA is a good thing.

And by the way, see the following posts at NRA in Danger: here.

It might be tempting to say, “My, my how the NRA has fallen.” The truth is that it has always been what it is today.  The most influential, well funded, well connected and successful gun control organization on earth.

Are you still giving money to them?  So that Wayne can bed down with his girl while his wife ignores it, all paid for by NRA dues?

News from Indiana.

Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb made Constitutional Carry the law in Indiana on March 21.

This will allow any Indiana resident over 18-years-old who qualifies to carry a handgun on their person without a permit to do so.

Vanderburgh County Sheriff Dave Wedding says that it could make law enforcement’s jobs considerably harder.

“Now, if you have maybe three people who shouldn’t possess a weapon inside of a vehicle, and they get stopped by police and there is a weapon,” said Wedding, “they can have some young person, 18-year-old person in the car and just claim, hey, those are my guns.”

So what?  It’s none of your business.  Mind you own business, nosey.  Issue the traffic citation and move on.

Officials say on July 1 no one in Indiana will be required to have a carry permit.

Good.  Constitutional carry comes to yet another state, and here’s yet another prediction.  There won’t be blood running in the streets and regardless of the predictions of chicken little, the sky won’t fall.

Now.  How about South Carolina?

Now this looks like it would be fun. And who else would teach it except Chris Costa.

I’ve followed the infantry weapons in use, from the bullpup IPI Malyk to AR-15s and AKs.  Of course, some idiot always drops by to respond that it’s all propaganda rather than really add to the conversation about weaponry.

This article outlines some really nice rifles recently given to their fighters.

Ukrainian National Guard special forces have started to receive their first 5.56x45mm AR-15-patterned rifles. This comes as some Ukrainian National Guard units have begun to rearm in line with NATO standards as part of closer alignment with the western alliance.

The official press announcement of the Ukrainian National Guard does not name the unit, only saying that a separate special unit of the Eastern Territorial Administration has received new UAR-15 assault rifles. The Firearm Blog website mentions that in recent months Ukraine also received a shipment of US military aid worth $60 million. Since the outbreak of the conflict in Donbass and the annexation of Crimea, Ukraine has undergone a massive rearmament program and kick-started its defense industry with a number of attempts at developing a small arms manufacturing capability which has seen the development of the FORT-250 rifle and the M4-WAC-47.

The rifles in the photos released by the National Guard are clearly marked “UKROP”, a branch of Ukraine’s state-run “Ukroboronprom” concern. The UKROP UAR-15 has been exhibited at a number of defense trade shows since 2018, and it seems that production of the rifle is now underway. The rifle appears to be patterned after the AR-15/M4, with a KeyMod forend, an enlarged T-charging handle, an adjustable stock and a full-length top rail. The rifles also appear to be select fire. They are also shown with Lancer translucent polymer magazines and a suppressor with flash hider, which is reportedly rated for up to 10,000 rounds.

I see the flash hider, I don’t see the suppressor.  Maybe the author is wrong about that.  But they are using translucent mags, a light KeyMod forend, a nice charging handle, and MLOK attachment rails along with a full 1913 rail on top.  The rifles appear to be Cerakoted charcoal gray.